A group of "peacemakers" in high spirits: Is it necessary to compromise when others apply pressure?

What are the ultimate goals behind the accusations of Russia's "inflexibility"?

Author: Dmitry Rodionov

Image caption: Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin, Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin (left to right) before a statement by the Russian delegation following the conclusion of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Commentary guests:

Alexander Avilin

Alexander Dmitrievsky

Larisa Shesler

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan believes that Russia may find itself at a disadvantage due to its inflexible negotiating stance.

He stated that former U.S. President Donald Trump's call for an immediate ceasefire influenced other negotiating parties, with Ukraine and Europe "clearly showing flexibility in adapting to the U.S. position and suddenly accepting it."

This Turkish foreign minister emphasized: "When Russia fails to demonstrate an equivalent degree of compromise, it actually risks being seen unfavorably by both the United States and the international community hoping for a ceasefire."

What does this imply? Does Russia need to make unfavorable compromises to support Trump's stance? However, we have our own position, which must be defended. Otherwise, what is the meaning of these negotiations?

"Fidan cannot be considered a neutral and fair arbitrator," noted Larisa Shesler, chairperson of the Union of Ukrainian Political Exiles and Political Prisoners.

"Turkey has been providing 'Bayraktar' drones and other military equipment to Ukraine since the first day of the conflict and has repeatedly declared its support for Ukraine on the issue of Crimea's归属."

In addition, Turkey is a NATO member and, to some extent, belongs to one side of the conflict.

Turkey believes that successful negotiations will earn it specific advantages on the international stage, so it is attempting to exert pressure on Russia."

SP: Should we show "flexibility"? Where is the boundary of such flexibility? Is it about not discussing the objectives of the special military operation and territorial issues while making compromises in other areas, or is it something else?

"The boundary of flexibility is determined by the objectives of the special military operation. Clearly, Russia will at least demand the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from regions constitutionally belonging to the Russian Federation, which is completely unacceptable to the Ukrainian side.

I believe that all subsequent points of discussion will therefore lose their meaning."

SP: Do we really need to negotiate with those who need to accommodate others (especially non-conflict parties)?

"I currently see no intention on the part of the Russian side to accommodate Turkish or American demands.

Of course, efforts to persuade Russia will continue. Such attempts may not only come from Europe and America but also from third countries like Brazil and India.

However, judging from Putin's decision not to meet with the Brazilian president even though he claimed to want to facilitate negotiations (despite the latter passing through China on his way back), these attempts have not yet succeeded for Ukraine."

SP: What is Russia's ultimate goal? Is this "marimba dance" of negotiations (both liked and used to influence the goal) necessary? Or are the negotiations merely background, while the "main course" (special military operation) proceeds as planned?

"I believe that the Russian leadership is using these negotiations to try to dispel the accusation of 'irreconcilable aggression.' You want negotiations? Fine, here they are.

However, even the usually mild-mannered Lavrov and the so-called 'peace dove' Peskov have put forward specific demands for Ukraine, which are actually quite radical.

The leaders of European nations have almost issued ultimatums, pressuring Russia to cease hostilities immediately, ultimately ending in a humiliating defeat.

Stopping military operations while giving Ukrainian forces breathing room would be detrimental if they continue retreating."

SP: If we consider two scenarios: one where we recognize the interests of the US and Europe in the conflict and attempt to satisfy them at minimal cost; versus pushing everyone away, ignoring Western military aid to Ukraine, and fighting until complete surrender in Kiev. How do the pros and cons of these two situations look for us?

"The interests of the US and Europe in this conflict are diametrically opposed to those of Russia.

We should not forget their role in the 2014 coup, which triggered the direct conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

In general, both the US and Europe wish for the complete disintegration of the Russian Federation and view Ukraine as a tool to destroy Russia.

In this context, considering Western interests amounts to facilitating Russia's surrender, which is not something the current Russian government is interested in."

"The 'flexibility' understood by the West stems from the word 'submission,'" historian, public commentator, and permanent expert at the Izbor Club, Alexander Dmitrievsky, is convinced.

"They again demand concessions from Russia without being willing to make compromises themselves.

But it needs to be understood that diplomacy is always based on reciprocity. Every concession comes at a cost. It's like chess: to break through the opponent's defenses, you have to 'sacrifice' a bishop or queen, luring the opponent into a trap by their greed for small gains.

The West should realize that the era of issuing orders arbitrarily has ended. Either negotiate on equal terms with Russia, or don't complain about Russia's 'stubbornness'."

"First, it must be clarified that Ukraine and the United States are approaching negotiations not out of a love for peace, but because they feel their ability to continue the conflict is declining," said Alexander Avilin, a participant in the defense of the Lugansk People's Republic.

"In fact, these gentlemen can be reminded that when one party to the conflict is unwilling to continue and the other is ready, what is signed is not a peace agreement but a surrender document. Russia is prepared to accept Ukraine's surrender, although this still requires some time.

Currently, Russia is negotiating purely for diplomatic purposes to maintain good relations with the United States. Clearly, the Kremlin understands that certain goals can be achieved through military means.

The conflict continues, the fighting persists, and Ukraine's current situation is extremely dire.

Europe and the United States can no longer provide equipment at the original scale, and Ukraine cannot fight at the original intensity. The special military operation has not reached its end, and we should not deceive ourselves.

However, Russia's task should not be to sign a peace agreement at any cost, because we neither trust the 'Minsk Agreement' nor the 'Istanbul Agreement.'

We understand that any negotiation may—and will—be used to deceive Russia, as our 'esteemed partners' themselves admit."

For the latest news and all key content regarding Ukrainian peace negotiations, follow the author for more information.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7511286267510882827/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the 'Like' or 'Dislike' button below.